Office Space and the New American Suburb Shaun Huston Western Oregon University, [email protected]
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Western Oregon University Digital Commons@WOU Faculty Research Publications - 6-1-2009 Filming Postbourgeois Suburbia: Office Space and the New American Suburb Shaun Huston Western Oregon University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wou.edu/fac_pubs Part of the American Popular Culture Commons, Critical and Cultural Studies Commons, and the Geography Commons Recommended Citation Huston, S. (2009). Filming Postbourgeois Suburbia: Office Space and the New American Suburb. Journal Of Popular Culture, 42(3), 497-514. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5931.2009.00692.x This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons@WOU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Research Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@WOU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Filming Postbourgeois Suburbia: Office Space and the New American Suburb SHAUN HUSTON ETACHED HOMES. WHITE PICKET FENCES. PRIVATE YARDS AND gardens. Park-like residential streets. These are the icons of Dthe post –World War II suburban American Dream. By the 1980s, a plurality of Americans lived in the suburbs. Through the 1990s and on into the start of the twenty-first century, Americans continued their suburban migration (Brooks 3 and 5; Martinson 180; Garreau 8). The postwar dream was realized. Or was it? Largely due to their tre mendous growth, the suburbs at the turn of the century, no longer matched their icons. Detached homes gave way to condos and even apartments. Beyond the picket fences lay office parks and shopping malls. Private yards and gardens were no longer guarantees. And yet, ‘‘when it comes to suburbia the American imagination is motionless’’ (Brooks 5). Residential exclusivity, family privacy, and isolation from work continue to govern the field of suburban representation. A notable departure from this pattern of representation is the 1999 film Office Space. Office Space has a cultish following among the current generation of college students and thirty-somethings. Written and directed by Mike Judge, the creator of Beavis and Butt-Head and King of the Hill, it tells the story of one man’s desire to ‘‘do nothing.’’ Given this pedigree, it would be easy to dismiss the film as a simple paean to youthful slack erliness; but, underneath that surface, is a unique exploration of the changed and changing suburban landscape—physical, cultural, and demographic. The new suburban configuration on display in Office Space has been given a multitude of names—‘‘technoburbs’’ (Fishman), ‘‘edge cities’’ (Garreau), ‘‘urban villages’’ (Leinberger and Lockwood), ‘‘sprin- The Journal of Popular Culture, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2009 r 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 497 498 Shaun Huston kler cities’’ (Brooks)—but the fundamental change expressed by all is a shift in suburban development from the exclusively residential to the ‘‘polymorphous’’ (Jurca 160). As illuminated by the film, alongside, and often adjacent to, the detached single-family homes are now office parks, apartments, condominiums, restaurants, retail centers, and sports stadiums. Interestingly, even as Office Space takes the audience on a tour of the new polymorphous suburban landscape, its dramatic themes are es sentially the same as those that define the film and the literature of the bedroom community, namely, the alienation, ennui, and emptiness of suburban existence (Plotz; Jurca). This joining of new landscapes to old themes suggests that while we can literally and figuratively map changes in the American suburbs, what those changes actually mean for and to individuals and the larger culture is harder to pin down. Based on the film, literature, and commentary, Americans are both irresistibly drawn to and repelled by their suburban landscapes and places. From the ways that the central characters in Office Space reflect on their lives and interact with each other and their landscape—pushed and pulled between acceptance and alienation—this appears to be as true today as it was in the 1950s. The film, then, simultaneously signposts the new suburban landscape and signifies the historical ambiguity through which Americans have come to terms with the postwar suburbs and experience of suburbia. Geography and Film: The Real-and-Imagined Suburbs Foregrounding my discussion of Office Space and the suburbs is current theory on the significance of cinematic and creative geographies to real or material spaces. In reference to the American West, Campbell writes, ‘‘We feel, think, dream, sense, know, act in, and exist in space, and as such experience it is as a complex, multifaceted texture of the ‘real-and-imagined’’’ (21). This bleeding together of real-and-imagined geographies applies equally to the American suburbs. The lived ex periences and materialities of suburban landscapes are inextricably bound-up in the art and literature that seeks to make sense of those environments. Along the same lines, Cresswell and Dixon note that approaches to film within geography have rotated around the question of represen Filming Postbourgeois Suburbia 499 tation and reality, or, how true films are to the external realities they seek to represent (see also Kennedy and Lukinbeal). This approach focuses on how closely filmmakers hew to geographic reality. This is even true for theories that emphasize the role of film in the ideological reproduction of the world. Even though such approaches put aside the notion of films as uncomplicated expressions of reality, or an artist’s vision of reality, they treat cinematic geographies as masks for under lying social conditions and relations and judge them according to their complicity in distorting ‘‘real’’ social geographies (e.g., Hopkins). However, parallel to Campbell’s real-and-imagined American West, Cresswell and Dixon further note that recent geographically informed film theory rejects either/or readings of the relationship between rep resentation and reality: ‘‘Films are no longer considered mere images or unmediated expressions of the mind but rather the temporary embod iment of social processes that continually construct and deconstruct the world as we know it’’ (4). In relation to the American suburbs, this process of ongoing construction and deconstruction is where the sig nificance of Office Space lies. In its visualization of the contemporary suburban landscape, the film deconstructs the image of the suburbs as residential community. However, its reconstruction of the meaning of that landscape simultaneously reasserts old social and dramatic themes and articulates new ones. In that sense, the movie embodies a particular moment in suburban development, one where Americans, as subur banites, writers, artists, and scholars, are struggling to understand how their cultural landscapes have and have not changed. In stitching together old and new themes and mapping them onto a changed and changing suburban landscape, Office Space constitutes what Aitken and Zonn refer to as a ‘‘place pastiche’’ (3). They argue that films, rather than simply representing external reality, represent it in dramaturgical fashion. In so doing, they actively (re)produce social/ geographic reality by giving it meaning, that is endowing it with order and structure, and providing images and narratives through which the audience makes sense of the world (7, 21). This process of represen tation involves piecing together fragments of reality—sounds, images, people (characters), segments of landscape—and presenting them as articulations of ‘‘the real’’ (15 –18). Indeed, the appeal of a film like Office Space stems in part from its ability to project images of the new suburban/edge city/technoburb environment that seems authentic to those who inhabit it. The movie works as a collage within a collage—a 500 Shaun Huston representational fiction that embeds with other representations to form the larger suburban pastiche that constitutes our image of that culture and its landscape. To better understand the particular significance of Office Space and its relationship to other suburban representations, I turn to Robert Fish man’s Bourgeois Utopias for historical perspective and to another film from 1999, American Beauty, for a counterpoint to Mike Judge’s work. The Classic (Cinematic) Suburb Far from the world of Office Space is the suburban ideal of separating work and residence, an ideal that Robert Fishman identifies with the cultural and economic rise of the ‘‘Anglo-American bourgeoisie,’’ or ‘‘middle class’’ (9). This ideal is rooted in eighteenth-century London, but flourished in late-nineteenth-century America and achieved its fullest realization in the railroad suburbs radiating from industrial cities such as Philadelphia (ch. 5). Suburbia, or, suburban culture, rested on the ‘‘primacy of the family and domestic life’’ (3). Achieving this primacy required a physical separation of the home from the world of work and public life. In the premodern world, the suburbs were culturally and economically marginal places; but, following the in dustrial revolution, they became desired and privileged environments where the new bourgeoisie could retreat from the ‘‘corrupt’’ city (9 – 12; Tuan ch. 14). Not only did the colonization of the ‘‘suburban frontier’’ promise privacy, ownership, and refuge, it also promised a new syn thesis of nature and culture and of city and country. This synthesis, it was hoped, would provide the ideal environment for family life (12, x). According to Fishman, the realization of bourgeois suburbia was short lived. Ironically, the practical